Guest Jlall Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 KQxxx A Axxx xxx. red/red MP 1H X 1S p 2H p ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 3♦. Maybe I'm missing something because it seems clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 Coming from someone that sometimes makes big views, I'm guessing the 4♥ card hit the table next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I think I might have XX'ed the first time. Now, I'm somewhat stuck. 3♦ works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 Ok to generate some discussion, does the takeout X scare anyone (mainly regarding hearts and spade splits)? A 6-1 heart fit is not very appealing with marginal values and a bad split, and where are your tricks in 3N? Try constructing some (unbiased) minimum hands for partner and seeing where you'd like to play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I thought 3♦ was clear. Then I generated 30 hands with simplistic constraints (partner 10-15 hcp with >=6 hearts and <=3 spades, RHO 10+ with short heart of 12+ with doubleton heart, at least 3 in each unbid suit, no 5 spades, etc.), of which 9-11 matched the bidding (in my judgment). Of those 4 were a make, 4-6 down, and one too tough for me to decide. Obviously it depends a lot on how light partner would open, I kicked out several aceless 10 counts (where game would have been down), and the 0-2 that were down were borderline openers. The above constraints give partner an average of 11 hcp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I would normally bid 3♦, but my first alternative (at MP's!) is to pass, not to bid a lot of hearts. So if I would want to take a view, I would pass, expecting to score +140 :) , +110 :D or +170 :(, with a possibility of +200 :rolleyes: , +500 :lol: or +800 :P . I would expect the field to score -100 (200) :D , +600 :unsure: , +620 :(. It would be a reasonable view to take if you want to go against the field. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 You seem to suggest passing.That would be a big view - how big depens on what is a minimum hand for partner here. Playing very constructive weak twos (8-11) passing would be a really big view for me, one I'd not be comfortable with. And it does happen that I take the low road. Playing a less constructive wk2 passing would be an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 Wasn't really suggesting a pass necessarily, just that game forcing is a huge overbid. Invites are available too (but have their own set of problems). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I'd have redoubled initially, and probaply had less problems later (not always). With my IRL partners I'd get to game here (playing 8-11 weak twos). But I'm not sure how. 3♦ might preempt 3NT when that is our best game and 4♥ is unilateral. 3♦ is most flexible. I'd rebid 4♥ over both 3♥ and 4♦. Partner should have a good chance at making the right decision ofter the latter development. This in practise gives up on 3NT, but you can't have it all. With other players I might possibly just make an invite by raising 2♥ to 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 That's why not redoubling disturbs me. If partner has his typical ugly opening, we don't even have enough HCP to suggest game, abd I have to make up a rebid now. Much better to redouble, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 Unbiased: xx, KQxxxx, Kxx, Kx - The problems in 4♥ are evident. xx, KQxxxx, Kxx, Ax - I think I want to play 4♥ here. x, KJxxxx, Kxx, Axx - 4♥ is crappy x, KJxxxx, Kxx, AQx - 4♥ is touch and go - 3N could be a little better. Are you suggesting the hand is only worth 3♥......? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 This is largely a style question, and unless one knows partners' opening bid style, one can't really answer it. If he's open 1♥ with an aceless 11 count, then 3♥ is enough. I don't like that style... I have no issues with 11 counts, it is the aceless aspect I don't like :P This is mps, where, if partner has a geniune opening bid, the field will be in game, and 3N seems an awful long way away. I am going to assume partner plays the cards at least as well as the average player in the field, and there may be tables where there was no double, if rho was light. So I am going to bid game, because not doing so with 13 real, including 5 controls, is too big a position to take. So it goes down.. I'm still getting some mps, while if it makes, and I didn't get there, I ain't getting many at all (I'd expect to beat only the pairs in 3N, and maybe not even them). 4♥ for me. If LHO doubles on J10987, too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I hear what everyone is saying, but I am still going to bid what is in front of me. 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 Ok to generate some discussion, does the takeout X scare anyone (mainly regarding hearts and spade splits)? A 6-1 heart fit is not very appealing with marginal values and a bad split, and where are your tricks in 3N? Try constructing some (unbiased) minimum hands for partner and seeing where you'd like to play This makes sense. But there's no way I'm going to miss a vulnerable game. 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 KQxxx A Axxx xxx. red/red MP 1H X 1S p 2H p ? hmm just seems so much on what partner opens on...if junk then I bid 2nt.... If very sound then I bid 3nt. wish I started with xx on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Ok to generate some discussion, does the takeout X scare anyone (mainly regarding hearts and spade splits)? A 6-1 heart fit is not very appealing with marginal values and a bad split, and where are your tricks in 3N? Try constructing some (unbiased) minimum hands for partner and seeing where you'd like to play This makes sense. But there's no way I'm going to miss a vulnerable game. 3♦. Why is it relevant whether game is vulnerable or not when you're playing MP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 3 ♦, yes pass is an option, so is 3 Heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 EVERYONE is going to be in game, unless partner's hand is being passed at other tables? Is partner the kind of guy who does that? I think I'm going to bid 3NT. The takeout-X makes 4♠ less attractive, and possibly also 4♥. I have a secret admiration for 3♥, especially if it worked :) but I am not a good enough player for these kinds of bids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Why is it relevant whether game is vulnerable or not when you're playing MP? Presumably the field collects a +500 penalty :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeegan Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 :P 3♥ or even 2NT. Even though my high cards are all aces and kings, the bidding suggests a number of serious potential flaws. 1. Partner's single most likely distribution is 1-6-3-3, which would be a mirror hand of sorts. 2. Minor suit 'quacks' in partner's hand are in the slot in front of the doubler 3. Partner may well have a fairly light opener:♠x♥KQJ972♦xxx♣AJxis too good for a classic weak two bid the way most people play it these days. 4. At matchpoints, going plus may be the main thing So, take it easy and let partner decide. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raivis Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 3♠.Vul. game looks good.Shows 5+♠ with game balance.Partner, choise contract - 4♥, 4♥ or 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 KQxxx A Axxx xxx. red/red MP 1H X 1S p 2H p ? A raise to 3♥ is reasonable on this hand if you don't want to bid 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 This makes sense. But there's no way I'm going to miss a vulnerable game. 3♦. Why is it relevant whether game is vulnerable or not when you're playing MP? MP? thought I'd read imps. Well, my comment doesn't apply then. Still, not bidding game rates to be the anti-field attitude. Not sure I'd stay out, but if I did stay out, it would be at MPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 I agree with Mike's rationale in the full; so much so that I think you should just get on with it at 4♥ and hide the diamond suit. Let them find the winning defense. I have good controls, pard's opened for me (ty pard) and you know where everything is sitting by the double practically. I disagree strongly with redoubling first - I want to show my five card spade suit and I can always double to show values later, and I have clear direction in the bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.